Allowed

Saurabh S/O Dhanraj Devda and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Oct 2022APPLN/471/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal cases under IPC 498-A/323/504/506 arising from a matrimonial dispute where parties settled amicably and obtained a mutual consent divorce, finding no violation of public policy.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Applications 1394/2020 and 471/2020 allowed; criminal case quashed and set aside; Application 643/2020 disposed of as infructuous.

Saurabh S/O Dhanraj Devda and Others Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1 Cr. Appln. 1394/2020+

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

987 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1394 OF 2020

¶4

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 471 OF 2020 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 643 OF 2020

¶5

ADV. LALIT PAWAR @ LALIT KUMAR PANWAR AND OTHERS VERSUS JAYSHRI W/O. SOURABH DEORA AND ANOTHER

¶6

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Mohit Lalit Deoda

¶7

h/f. Mr.Ostwal A.D.(Cr.Appln./1394/2020)

¶8

Advocate for applicant : Mr. S.D. Munde h/f. Mr. R.R. Karpe (Cr.Appln./471/2020) APP for the respondent – State : Mr. S.J. Salgare

¶9

Mr. G.D. Jain, Advocate for applicant (Cr. Appln. / 643 /2020) and for the respondent no. 1 (Cr. Appln./194/2020)

¶10

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ. DATE : 14 OCTOBER 2022

¶11

PC :

¶12

Criminal Application no. 1394 of 2020 and 471 of 2020 have been filed by three different accused seeking quashment of Criminal Case arising from FIR lodged by the respondent no. 2 registered as crime no. 342 of 2019 with Aakalkuwa Police Station, District – Nandurbar for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

It appears that both the sides i.e. the accused and the respondent no. 2 have amicably settled the dispute. The genesis of the crime is a matrimonial dispute. It is submitted that the parties have

¶14

2 Cr. Appln. 1394/2020+

¶15

reached some kind of settlement mentioned in the affidavit in reply of the respondent – Jayshri Sourabh Deora.

¶16

The learned APP, on instructions, submits that he has no instructions regarding the criminal antecedents of the applicants.

¶17

Be that as it may. Considering the fact that it is a matrimonial dispute which has led to the registration of the crime and when the lady herself is now desirous of withdrawing the criminal case in view of such settlement and particulary when the learned advocates of both the sides are making an emphatic statement before this Court that subequently even the couple has got severed the matrimonial tie by way of divorce by mutual consent, a copy of which is tendered across the bar and taken on record, and in the absence of material to demonstrate that the proposed compromise is against the public policy, we allow the Criminal Application no. 1394 of 2020 and Criminal Application no. 471 of 2020 and quash and set aside the criminal case.

¶18

Criminal Application no. 643 of 2020 was filed for further / proper investigation by the same lady – Jayshri Sourabh Deora. It is also disposed of having become infructuous.

¶19

[ SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶20

arp/

Saurabh S/O Dhanraj Devda and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh S/O Dhanraj Devda and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Ismail Noor Mohd. Madna Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sunil Rajaram Manndavkar (C-5245) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vivek Buddhinath Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others